According to the latest Neilsen ratings, The Sean Hannity Show has lost 50% of its audience in the wake of Obama's election victory...this is attributed by the experts to Sean's audience feeling they were lied to by Hannity since Hannity had spoon-fed his audience the impossibility of Obama winning another term and this has shattered his credibility tremendously....

Rachel Maddow lost none of her audience and now regularly beats Hannity in the ratings....WOW..talk about a turnaround....the funny thing is I used to NEVER watch Rachel Maddow but now I catch it as much as I can...very good show...and Rachel backs up everything she says with facts and shows you the sources where she got them....

According to the latest Neilsen ratings, The Sean Hannity Show has lost 50% of its audience in the wake of Obama's election victory...this is attributed by the experts to Sean's audience feeling they were lied to by Hannity since Hannity had spoon-fed his audience the impossibility of Obama winning another term and this has shattered his credibility tremendously....

Rachel Maddow lost none of her audience and now regularly beats Hannity in the ratings....WOW..talk about a turnaround....the funny thing is I used to NEVER watch Rachel Maddow but now I catch it as much as I can...very good show...and Rachel backs up everything she says with facts and shows you the sources where she got them....

According to the latest Neilsen ratings, The Sean Hannity Show has lost 50% of its audience in the wake of Obama's election victory...this is attributed by the experts to Sean's audience feeling they were lied to by Hannity since Hannity had spoon-fed his audience the impossibility of Obama winning another term and this has shattered his credibility tremendously....

Rachel Maddow lost none of her audience and now regularly beats Hannity in the ratings....WOW..talk about a turnaround....the funny thing is I used to NEVER watch Rachel Maddow but now I catch it as much as I can...very good show...and Rachel backs up everything she says with facts and shows you the sources where she got them....

That's funny! According to TVbythenumbers.com, Hannity still beats Maddow at the 9pm slot.

My guess is you quoted a source that only counts the 25-54 demographic, which (in some cases) Maddow was ahead of Hannity, particularly shortly after the election. But, Hannity still had the lead overall and has hardly lost 50% of his audience, according to these numbers.

This is hardly the first time the left has used this tactic, with regards to promoting MSNBC shows. But, after a couple of months or so, the Fox shows go back on top in that demo, while still staying on top overall.

My guess is you quoted a source that only counts the 25-54 demographic, which (in some cases) Maddow was ahead of Hannity, particularly shortly after the election. But, Hannity still had the lead overall and has hardly lost 50% of his audience, according to these numbers.

This is hardly the first time the left has used this tactic, with regards to promoting MSNBC shows. But, after a couple of months or so, the Fox shows go back on top in that demo, while still staying on top overall.

dude....you need a psychiatrist...everything out of your mouth is some conspiracy by leftists.....you are sounding more and more like 3333 when he talks about "communists"

My guess is you quoted a source that only counts the 25-54 demographic, which (in some cases) Maddow was ahead of Hannity, particularly shortly after the election. But, Hannity still had the lead overall and has hardly lost 50% of his audience, according to these numbers.

This is hardly the first time the left has used this tactic, with regards to promoting MSNBC shows. But, after a couple of months or so, the Fox shows go back on top in that demo, while still staying on top overall.

it is this demographic he is talking about, this is correct. The fact remains he did lose 50% of this audience, the most important demographic in news and has lost to Maddow on numerous occasions, something that has never previously occured. Also, it bears out some interesting implications, he is becoming less relevant, people realize how much of a stooge he is when his predictions were 100% wrong.

I know you will say the right said Romney, the left Obama, but that's not true. The right were in fantasy land and the left called it correctly, one dealt with facts another with emotion.

it is this demographic he is talking about, this is correct. The fact remains he did lose 50% of this audience, the most important demographic in news and has lost to Maddow on numerous occasions, something that has never previously occured. Also, it bears out some interesting implications, he is becoming less relevant, people realize how much of a stooge he is when his predictions were 100% wrong.

I know you will say the right said Romney, the left Obama, but that's not true. The right were in fantasy land and the left called it correctly, one dealt with facts another with emotion.

Losing on numerous occasions? Maddow has had her show since 2008. Hannity has been beating her for over four years. Relatively speaking, winning a few nights here and there, when you been losing for years (key demo and all) is hardly what I'd call "numerous occasions".

Furthermore, if Hannity lost "50%" of his audience, that would mean he was averaging 3.5-4 million viewers per night. That's hardly the case. Even O'Reilly doesn't get those numbers on the regular (though, he can crack the 3 million mark fairly often).

Andre didn't state that Maddow was beating Hannity in that demographic. His statement implied that she's beating him, overall, which is false. He has NO numbers, to back his claim of Hannity's loss of half his audience.

And, over the last couple of months, it's been back and forth in the 25-54 demographic, with the most recent numbers showing Hannity back in the lead.

That has more to do with the election than anything else, which is hardly a surprise. This happened about this time a few years back. It even happened when Olbermann was around; for a minute or two, he bested O'Reilly in the key demo. But, O'Reilly clobbered him, overall.

When the political season ended, O'Reilly got the demo back and kept it, for years on end, until Olbermann got bounced from MSNBC. The same thing pretty much happened with Maddow vs. Hannity.

And, I will say the right said Romney and the left Obama, because that's what happened. Even on Fox, all the liberal commentators picked Obama. I named them specifically the last time this issue came up. Yet, as usual, you ignored that and pretended that every single Fox commentator said Romney would win it.

dude....you need a psychiatrist...everything out of your mouth is some conspiracy by leftists.....you are sounding more and more like 3333 when he talks about "communists"

You think this is the first time the left has boasted about MSNBC shows "beating" Fox News shows in the ratings, when in reality, they were only beating them in that demographic (and for a short period of time)?

They've were yapping about Olbermann beating O'Reilly in that demo, here and there, during the BUSH years (even though O'Reilly had been cleaning his clock in the overall numbers about 5 years straight).

MSNBC has been shuffling its lineup FOR YEARS, trying to get a formula to CONSISTENTLY beat Fox News (not win a few onesies-twosies in the 25-54 demographic). But, they've yet to get it done. With Olbermann gone, Maddow is their heavy hitter. Yet, she can't even get past Hannity; she's barely getting Van Strustren numbers (the most vanilla of the Fox primetime lineup). Put her against O'Reilly and she gets slaughtered.

And, contrary to yet another claim of yours, Hannity didn't spoon-feed any narrative that it was impossible for Obama to win. In fact, he was a huge skeptic of Rove and Morris, when they kept mentioning their predictions. He never bought into the whole landslide routine and kept pleading with voters to get to the polls, because every vote would matter.

Losing on numerous occasions? Maddow has had her show since 2008. Hannity has been beating her for over four years. Relatively speaking, winning a few nights here and there, when you been losing for years (key demo and all) is hardly what I'd call "numerous occasions".

irrelevant, the point was that things are changing, the past is as relevant as my foreskinFurthermore, if Hannity lost "50%" of his audience, that would mean he was averaging 3.5-4 million viewers per night. That's hardly the case. Even O'Reilly doesn't get those numbers on the regular (though, he can crack the 3 million mark fairly often).

This is a comprehension issue, 50% of that demographic was citedAndre didn't state that Maddow was beating Hannity in that demographic. His statement implied that she's beating him, overall, which is false. He has NO numbers, to back his claim of Hannity's loss of half his audience.correctAnd, over the last couple of months, it's been back and forth in the 25-54 demographic, with the most recent numbers showing Hannity back in the lead.

source?

That has more to do with the election than anything else, which is hardly a surprise. This happened about this time a few years back. It even happened when Olbermann was around; for a minute or two, he bested O'Reilly in the key demo. But, O'Reilly clobbered him, overall.

When the political season ended, O'Reilly got the demo back and kept it, for years on end, until Olbermann got bounced from MSNBC. The same thing pretty much happened with Maddow vs. Hannity.

you seem to cite the past as evidence quite a bit, I mean could you conceive that the political landscape is changing? we know you were way wrong during the election so perhaps you are also wrong here? For example on the fiscal cliff issue the country supports Obama and blames the GOP in opinion polls

And, I will say the right said Romney and the left Obama, because that's what happened. Even on Fox, all the liberal commentators picked Obama. I named them specifically the last time this issue came up. Yet, as usual, you ignored that and pretended that every single Fox commentator said Romney would win it.

thats stupid, you don't pick your team you use raw data to make the predictions, this isn't a fanclub. This type of mentality is the issue, repubs shouldn't pick repubs nor the opposite, the data does the talking, it's why Nate Silver was so accurate, he uses something called facts. Facts you see override belief anytime.

irrelevant, the point was that things are changing, the past is as relevant as my foreskin

That wasn't the point. The point was Andre, making a questionable, if not flat-out FALSE claim, about Hannity's numbers and those of Maddow, perhaps with the wishful thinking by him (and you) that MSNBC overtakes Fox in the ratings.

you seem to cite the past as evidence quite a bit, I mean could you conceive that the political landscape is changing? we know you were way wrong during the election so perhaps you are also wrong here? For example on the fiscal cliff issue the country supports Obama and blames the GOP in opinion polls

Who doesn't cite the past as evidence to predict the future? You win some; you lose some. But, you've made my point from earlier. This is wishful thinking from you and Andre that Maddow's occasional bumps in the 25-54 demo means MSNBC is going to overtake Fox as cable news' top dog.

Yet, that didn't happen, even with Olbermann (whose ratings were consistently higher than what Maddow gets now).

As for the fiscal cliff, what a shocker : People support Obama taking OTHER PEOPLE'S money but not their own. They're of the misguided belief that doing such won't adversely affect them.

thats stupid, you don't pick your team you use raw data to make the predictions, this isn't a fanclub. This type of mentality is the issue, repubs shouldn't pick repubs nor the opposite, the data does the talking, it's why Nate Silver was so accurate, he uses something called facts. Facts you see override belief anytime.

And with raw data, you make assumptions and your predictions are based on such. The predictions on Romney were based on the assumption that turnout would be lower for Obama's base (which it was, overall), that Romney would win independents (which he did).

The problem was the assumption that Romney would, at least, replicate the turnout McCain got (which he didn't).

That wasn't the point. The point was Andre, making a questionable, if not flat-out FALSE claim, about Hannity's numbers and those of Maddow, perhaps with the wishful thinking by him (and you) that MSNBC overtakes Fox in the ratings.

One, Andre didn't spell out that demographic.

Two, even within that demo, he put NO numbers forward to suggest that Hannity's share had been cut in half.

I already gave it to you: TvByTheNumbers.com

Who doesn't cite the past as evidence to predict the future? You win some; you lose some. But, you've made my point from earlier. This is wishful thinking from you and Andre that Maddow's occasional bumps in the 25-54 demo means MSNBC is going to overtake Fox as cable news' top dog.

Yet, that didn't happen, even with Olbermann (whose ratings were consistently higher than what Maddow gets now).

As for the fiscal cliff, what a shocker : People support Obama taking OTHER PEOPLE'S money but not their own. They're of the misguided belief that doing such won't adversely affect them.

And with raw data, you make assumptions and your predictions are based on such. The predictions on Romney were based on the assumption that turnout would be lower for Obama's base (which it was, overall), that Romney would win independents (which he did).

The problem was the assumption that Romney would, at least, replicate the turnout McCain got (which he didn't).

I'm not going to dispute your analysis.....I only do tons of research on topics that are near and dear to my heart....this wasn't that important to me, and I as just throwing out a topic of conversation...I simply stated that Hannity had lost 50% of his audience and that Rachel Maddow is now beating him a lot of the time...it wasn't meant to be a thesis....

But the fact is that the Republican pundits have been thoroughly destroyed in terms of their credibility.....not so much for being wrong but due to their being so incredibly smug in their predictions and then being sore losers afterwards

I'm not going to dispute your analysis.....I only do tons of research on topics that are near and dear to my heart....this wasn't that important to me, and I as just throwing out a topic of conversation...I simply stated that Hannity had lost 50% of his audience and that Rachel Maddow is now beating him a lot of the time...it wasn't meant to be a thesis....

Both of those statements are incorrect. And, I don't need a thesis to prove that. Simply looking at the numbers, which you apparently failed to do, shows it.

But the fact is that the Republican pundits have been thoroughly destroyed in terms of their credibility.....not so much for being wrong but due to their being so incredibly smug in their predictions and then being sore losers afterwards

Pundits make right picks and they make wrong picks. I don't recall any Democrat pundits being "thoroughly destroyed" after Bush got re-elected in 2004. Wasn't there a guy on MSNBC who called Kerry "Mr. President" (Shrum) before the votes were even tallied?

Were the MSNBC pundits' credibility "thoroughly destroyed", when they thought Scott Walker was going to get recalled back in June and they were still claiming the race wasn't over, even when their own network called it for Walker?

What about the 2010 midterms, when the libs on MSNBC were beyond crestfallen, after the Dems lost the House?

I'm having a tough time, remember the last occasion where the Democrats lost and were good sports about it.